I always enjoy studying the early church. The more you do, the more you realize that our current model with large meetings, tight central leadership and one-way message delivery is very different from the way the early church ran. The early church was made of tiny groups of people, a dozen or so in each group, that would meet in a household somewhere. Rather than one person reading and delivering the service, all members took part. All took turns sharing what they had learned od been meditating on that week. Central leadership would travel around meeting these groups and sharing occasionally to ensure they stayed on track, but overall it was a small group study. The method of worship varied greatly from one group to another. Some would play music and sing together, others would shun instruments to separate themselves from the pagans. Some would meet over a meal, others would only have a symbolic communion. Many of the practices we take for granted are recent developments and weren't part of the early church.
If you can pick and chose the parts of the Bible you like and ignore the rest, so can I. You accuse me of the crime you commit. This is called hypocrisy. You disagree with YOURSELF. By the way, atheism is a branch theology.
" The decree of Trent was repromulgated by the first Vatican Council of 1869-70, which explained further that the biblical books were not acknowledged as canonical because they had first been produced by human intelligence and then canonized by the church's authority, but rather because they had God for their author, being inspired by the Holy Spirit and then entrusted to the Church. " As for the status of the books which Jerome called apocryphal, there is general agreement among Roman Catholic scholars today (as among their colleagues of other Christian traditions) to call them 'deuterocanonical' ( a term first used, it appears, in the sixteenth century). Jerome's distinction is thus maintained in practice, even if it does not enjoy concilar support. " (Canon of Scripture, F.F. Bruce, p. 105) Im saying that the apocryphal books were in several Bibles, but always with the statements that they were not inspired Scripture. They were not declared inspired Scripture, or canonical, until the council of Trent. This was some 20 years later than Luthor's nailing of the thesis. Quantrill
Sorry pardner. I believe the whole Bible. Not just parts. Atheism is non-belief. It has no part in theology. Quantrill
From another site: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm References in New Testament Order Matthew Matthew 4:4 Wisdom 16:26 Matthew 4:15 1 Maccabees 5:15 Matthew 5:18 Baruch 4:1 Matthew 5:28 Sirach 9:8 Matthew 5:2ss Sirach 25:7-12 Matthew 5:4 Sirach 48:24 Matthew 6:7 Sirach 7:14 Matthew 6:9 Sirach 23:1, 4 Matthew 6:10 1 Maccabees 3:60 Matthew 6:12 Sirach 28:2 Matthew 6:13 Sirach 33:1 Matthew 6:20 Sirach 29:10s Matthew 6:23 Sirach 14:10 Matthew 6:33 Wisdom 7:11 Matthew 7:12 Tobit 4:15 Matthew 7:12 Sirach 31:15 Matthew 7:16 Sirach 27:6 Matthew 8:11 Baruch 4:37 Matthew 8:21 Tobit 4:3 Matthew 9:36 Judith 11:19 Matthew 9:38 1 Maccabees 12:17 Matthew 10:16 Sirach 13:17 Matthew 11:14 Sirach 48:10 Matthew 11:22 Judith 16:17 Matthew 11:25 Tobit 7:17 Matthew 11:25 Sirach 51:1 Matthew 11:28 Sirach 24:19 Matthew 11:28 Sirach 51:23 Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:24s Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:28s Matthew 11:29 Sirach 51:26s Matthew 12:4 2 Maccabees 10:3 Matthew 12:5 Sirach 40:15 Matthew 13:44 Sirach 20:30s Matthew 16:18 Wisdom 16:13 Matthew 16:22 1 Maccabees 2:21 Matthew 16:27 Sirach 35:22 Matthew 17:11 Sirach 48:10 Matthew 18:10 Tobit 12:15 Matthew 20:2 Tobit 5:15 Matthew 22:13 Wisdom 17:2 Matthew 23:38 Tobit 14:4 Matthew 24:15 1 Maccabees 1:54 Matthew 24:15 2 Maccabees 8:17 Matthew 24:16 1 Maccabees 2:28 Matthew 25:35 Tobit 4:17 Matthew 25:36 Sirach 7:32-35 Matthew 26:38 Sirach 37:2 Matthew 27:24 Daniel 13:46 Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:13 Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:18-20
I'm a defensive Catholic. Comes from being raised in the Bible Belt. I've actually gotten better. The thing is, I get tired of Protestants making claims about how Catholics have just made everything up. It's just not true. I had seen the list I posted before, and I truth checked a few.
I have been defending Catholics all the time here, to the point that many have been sure that I am a Catholic, but not an evangelical. I do accept that that there has been tons of lies made up on behalf of Protestants. Try to follow me, and do the same, brother. Do you have balls to stand up to the truth?
What does this have to do with whether or not the books were always part of the OT. In fact, it just re-affirms them. The New Testament Deuteros It is ironic that Protestants reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), because these are the very same early Church councils that Protestants appeal to for the canon of the New Testament. Prior to the councils of the late 300s, there was a wide range of disagreement over exactly what books belonged in the New Testament. Certain books, such as the gospels, acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon. However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, "New Testament deuterocanonicals." While Protestants are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage (the councils they most commonly cite) for the canonicity of the New Testament deuterocanonicals, they are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals. Ironic indeed! http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm
But that's my point. Your belief in the whole of the Bible is making you nuts. You should not believe all of the Bible. At the very least, you should be able to evaluate its content the way you would evaluate the content of any book and decide for yourself. Atheism is non-belief IN GOD, is a stance in relation to the God-question, and thus clearly falls under the purview of theology.
I have no intention of debating the Bible with people who have no understanding of it at all. Study some theology and we can discuss it. Fr. Yukon
There is still a lot of bigotry against Catholics. Best not to engage the bigot other than to denounce him.
Never herd of JS, Have seen Iesus Same could be said about a Protestant. Seems you have nothign better to add to the thread but insults and off-topic bs. What does this prove? Greek was used before Latin? OR the EO do not know about their own Iconography?
You and te rest of the Protestants using this stupid argument, go ahead and show where everysingle protestant approved book in OT is qouted undoubtly in NT.
You are very much mistaken. If anything, I critiqued those who belive one thing then are hostile to those who believe something similar, but different.
No. The books in the Roman Catholic Bible are Apocryphal. Though they were in some of the early Bibles, they were designated as not canonical. Only the Council of Trent declared them canonical. Before that they were never accepted as Scripture. Quantrill
You directed your complaint towards the church, those of the Christian faith. Read it again. Quantrill
No. My belief in the whole Bible is a product of me being a Christian. My responsibility towards God is not to evaluate the Bible. It is to learn and read and study His Word. Atheism is just non-belief. Nothing more. It falls under no theology. Quantrill
